The word serjeant is derived from the Latin serviens, which means "servant.""

Be that as it may, but "sergeant" (coming from 13th century military use) and "serjeant" (coming from the 16th century legal use) are generally seen as being different. They may sound alike, but it's just as annoying to interchange them as it is when people say "It has set a president in law". I just don't believe it's correct.

but it is. in the u.s., it's generally 'sergeant-at-arms' (and many deliberative bodies have them) - 'serjeant' is more a british usage._________________aka: neverscared!

No, I'm not too hideous. (I try to keep my slimy stinging tentacles folded in, for the most part.) But i do stumble around now in this walking boot, which makes the 'surprise, i'm naked, this is my house, get over it' thing impossible. BTW 'precedent' and 'president' don't even sound alike, at least, not to me. Who the heck is dumb enough to confuse them? It's not as bad as principal and principle (which have a different terminal to me), or affect and effect. The searg/jeant at arms thing is correct, assuming there was any order there worth keeping. Knowing Bryan I would have to say little to none. So I would have to say that unwillingly seen, 350 pound, out of shape, drunken frat boy, football/rugby player porn is bad. For everyone. Including the participants._________________'What about it, K9?' 'Insufficient data, Master.' 'Yeah, you never &@?#!$% know the answer when it's important.'